Rubio v. Trump v. The World

          Marco Rubio, whose reputation as a level-headed has taken him this far in the presidential race, was recently tested by none other than resident instigator, Donald Trump. In an interview with CNN Trump said, "Marco Rubio, he's like a kid. He shouldn't be running in this race as far as I'm concerned" (Diamond). On top of this, Trump called Rubio out as lazy and weak in terms of fundraising. However, Trump's latter claim is ironic; according to the New York Times, Rubio is leaps and bounds ahead of Trump in terms of "Money Raised." In fact, Rubio is ranked at #3 of the current 14 Republican candidates, where Trump is at #12. 

          Notorious for his composure, Rubio is maintaining his collected nature in his response to Trump's relatively unfounded claims and accusations. Speaking to WLAP Radio, Rubio recognized that Trump has been "exposed" recently and that he understands that Trump attacking him is just his way of reacting to his own situation. Rubio stands by his opinion that Trump is a laughable candidate in this race: "He really never talks about issues and can't have more than a 10-second sound bite on any key issue" (Rappeport). While I agree with Rubio here (in fact, after watching the GOP Debates, "10-seconds" may be a bit of a reach), the American people still seem to be intrigued by something about Donald Trump. 

          There must be something of substance which continues to draw the people in. After all, Trump is continuing to lead in many polls. According to a study done by Quinnipiac University, Trump is retaining his lead; he currently has 25% of the Republican support. However, other candidates are following closely at his heels. Ben Carson and Carly Fiorina have currently have 17% and 12%, respectively. After the debates, it was widely considered that Fiorina gave the most compelling performance while Trump, though entertaining, was the worst. So, what is the verdict? Will Bush, Fiorina, and Carson surpass Trump entirely, leaving him in the dust? Or will he continue to win over the hearts of the American people? And what will become of Marco Rubio? Will he keep his position as a frontrunner, or is he all talk and no action? Comment below with your responses.



Source: http://www.cnn.com/2015/09/24/politics/donald-trump-marco-rubio-foreign-policy/
Source: http://www.nytimes.com/politics/first-draft/2015/09/24/taking-the-gloves-off-marco-rubio-punches-back-at-donald-trump/
Source: http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2016/us/elections/presidential-candidates-dashboard.html
Source: http://www.nytimes.com/politics/first-draft/2015/09/24/taking-the-gloves-off-marco-rubio-punches-back-at-donald-trump/

Pope Francis Challenges Congress to Heal World’s ‘Open Wounds’

SEPT. 24, 2015

           Nearly a week ago, Pope Francis ventured on a historic endeavor to try to change the conditions and lifestyle in Cuba. Now he is on another mission, to turn the perspectives of the American public and to bring about changes that he believes is for the better good. Just before Pope Francis landed at Joint Andrews Base in Maryland, the Catholic community in the United States were already debating on the issues that Pope Francis might bring forth in front of Congress. As soon as the Pope landed, both President Barack Obama and Vice President Joe Biden were there to greet and accompany Pope Francis as he traveled to Washington D.C.. Today, September 24th, he went in front of Congress to express his thoughts on many issues deemed worthy enough to deliver his message to the American public.

           The Pope, being the leader of almost 1.2 billion Catholics around the world, questioned American government's policies and conduct for the American people. He called for the American government to start using its political power to stop poverty that is ravaging across society. In addition, he asked the American government to help patch up the "wounds" in the world that are a result of hatred, greed and pollution. He acquainted himself with many liberal issues and wanted the government to resolve this issues in a orderly manner. He preached for the condemnation of firearm trade and the elimination of the death penalty. Yet, one issue he believed should be top priority is that the government shouldn't make decisions based on their wealth, but rather make decisions that will provoke wholesome change in humanity. “Politics is, instead, an expression of our compelling need to live as one, in order to build as one, the greatest common good,” he told a joint meeting in Congress (New York Times). Along with many political issues, he also defended religious freedom and addressed the issue of same sex marriage. He believes that people should still follow the writings of the Bible and what a normal family consists of, yet he is willing to accept that family can be defined in various ways. "Fundamental relationships are being called into question, as is the very basis of marriage and the family. I can only reiterate the importance and, above all, the richness and the beauty of family life," Pope Francis said (New York Times). Overall, Pope Francis wants the American government to help mend the bridges between the wealthy and poor, the oppressed and all of humanity as whole. After his confrontation with Congress, he decided to visit the homeless at St. Patrick's Church to get his message across to the rest of society about the importance of helping the poverty-stricken community. 

Do you agree or disagree with what the Pope deems as important for the American government to address?

Source:
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/09/25/us/pope-francis-congress-speech.html?_r=0

Increasing Prescription Drug Costs

           Over the past few decades, companies have been taking older drugs which previously have been relatively cheap and vastly increasing the cost of them. This has been creating huge problems for patients without the financial capacity to pay for such lifesaving drugs. With the recent outrage over the 5000 percent increase in price of Daraprim, the prescription aids medication, Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders have both vocalized their plans to solve the recent prescription drug problems. Clinton this past Tuesday made a proposal to the public to put a 250 per month cap on out of pocket prescription drug expenses. Clinton stated that her patient spending cap would be parent of a larger plan that would eventually force drug makers to spend more on research and and development, end tax breaks for pharmaceutical advertising, and to import drugs from other countries. Sanders reiterated his earlier statements on the matter stating that he wanted to allow citizens to purchase drugs from Canada and to have Medicare negotiate with drug companies over prices. He also stated that he has backed these proposals since 1999, long before Clinton ever announced any of her proposals. Many citizens have started to vastly criticize Clinton for her proposal as they have said that it would make it harder for patients to get the drugs they need, actually cause prices of drugs to go up, and have the focus be on research instead of helping the public. More people have supported Sanders idea's for drug reform than Clinton's.

1. Should either plan be put into action?

2. Why has the republican party remained very quiet over the increasing controversy?

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/09/23/us/politics/hillary-rodham-clinton-proposes-cap-on-patients-drug-costs-as-sanders-pushes-his-plan.html?ref=politics

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/09/21/business/a-huge-overnight-increase-in-a-drugs-price-raises-protests.html

Pope Francis in the United States

            Since Dwight D. Eisenhower met Pope John XXIII every president has met the pope. This week Pope Francis is visiting the United States and met President Obama last Wednesday. At the elaborate welcoming ceremony on the South Lawn of the White House, the Pope addressed 11,000 ticketed guests and the nation. In this address he shared his opinions on many of the controversial issues that plague the American government. He gave his support to President Obama's efforts on climate change, stating that he was "accepting the urgency, it seems clear to me also that climate change is a problem that can no longer be left to a future generation." Pope Francis also agreed with President Obama's efforts to rebuild ties with Cuba; an opinion not shared by many Republicans. While he agreed that the economy is benefitting the few upper-class at the expense of many he also defended traditional values. Pope Francis warned against protecting the institutions of marriage and family; an opinion not shared by many liberals. The Supreme Court ruled only months ago in the favor of nationwide same-sex marriage. He also spoke on behalf of American Catholics stating that they were, "concerned that efforts to build a just and wisely ordered society respect their deepest concerns and their right to religious liberty..." President Obama was quick to point out that "here in the United States we cherish religious liberty." Pope Francis will continue his United States tour in New York and Philadelphia stating that he is here to offer guidance about shaping the nation's political future "in fidelity to its founding principles" and was ready to listen to the "hopes and dreams of the American people."  Some of the questions that the Pope's visit leaves us with is whether or not his visit and guidance on politics blurs the lines of religion and state too much. Plus on a broader scale, especially admits candidate Ben Carson's controversial statements; should religion be discussed in campaign debates if it supposed to be separate from the state?

http://www.cnn.com/2015/09/23/politics/pope-francis-washington-visit-updates/

http://www.cnn.com/2015/09/22/politics/history-of-popes-and-presidents/index.html

The Syrian Civil War, Recent Players, and Its Effects

The complex situation concerning the Syrian revolution and the refugee crisis it has caused is building new tensions between the U.S. and Russia. Due to the constant escalation of this terrifying civil war Syrian people have been leaving their nation in even greater numbers, neighboring countries have reached capacity, and many are being turned away from European countries. Making matters worse, Russian Prime Minister Putin sent fighter planes to Syria in support of Al- Assad, furthering the bloody conflict. The Syrian refugee crisis is exacerbated by Russia’s aid to Syrian President Al-Assad which opposes American policies calling for the end of Al-Assad’s regime. This presents a threat to US fighter planes in the region, ratchets up the tension between the U.S. and Russia, and gives Al-Assad one more method of slaughtering his people.The conflict of interest between the United States and Russia concerning the side each country supports may strain relations going forward. This brings us to the question of whether or not outside countries should even involve themselves. If so, where do we cross the line from aid into interference? Most importantly, as this conflict escalates and the need to put an end to the situation for the sake of the refugees becomes more urgent, how is the global community to put a stop to this civil war?

On Syria Sources:

http://www.cnn.com/2015/09/18/politics/russia-fighter-jets-syria-carter/

http://www.wsj.com/articles/u-s-defense-secretary-discusses-syria-with-russian-counterpart-1442589965

http://www.newsweek.com/syrian-refugees-all-you-need-know-373475

http://www.irishtimes.com/polopoly

Hopefully not the Start of a Cold War

Hopefully not the start of a cold war

President Barack Obama is scheduled to host a state visit from Chinese leader Xi Jinping on September twenty-fifth. As China’s economic state is deteriorating, President Obama is expected to take a restrained position in talks with Xi Jinping, as the global economy ties our countries together. However, due to cyber spying on China’s part and China's aggression toward neighbors on the South China Sea, the President may very well come down hard on China, imposing sanctions on Chinese companies thought to be engaged in hacking American businesses and interfering with China's internet. Our President is tasked with walking a fine line in order to make his last sixteen months of office count. Coupled with Xi Jinping’s need to appear strong and hard-edge on protecting China’s interests in the face of economic decline, many think President Obama may have a hard go of it. However, though tensions may be high, neither party wants to pick a fight in this instance. Diplomatic relations are key in this day and age, both due to the globalization of the economy and the growing cooperation between countries. During his stay, Xi Jinping and President Obama will hesitate to do anything rash, but neither of them will be in a position with their constituents where they will be able to back down. There will be more on this story as it develops, and I hope to start a discussion concerning:  

1. How will this meeting pan out? 
2. What action or inaction do you think the situation dealing in cyber espionage calls for on the federal level?
3. What will this meeting's long-term effects be in terms of relations with China?

House Votes to Halt Planned Parenthood Funding for a Year

This past Friday, the House voted along party lines to block any federal funding of Planned Parenthood for a year. In a 241-187, almost all House Republicans and two Democrats approved this legislation. This will give time for Congress to investigate the claims of wrongdoing. The legislation is unlikely to be enacted as the Senate has enough votes to block it, and President Obama has promised a veto. However, the passing in the House is mostly a symbolic action, since it is the first legislation that has been passed after the hidden camera videos of Planned Parenthood employees came out this past summer, which featured dialogue between employees of Planned Parenthood discussing how they can illegally profit from the tissue of aborted fetuses.

House GOP leaders hope that this legislation will placate the 31 conservatives who have promised not to vote for any spending bill that includes Planned Parenthood in order to avoid a government shutdown. However, it is unlikely that this action will suffice as Rep. Steve King (R-Iowa) said that is was “not a sufficient vote to defund Planned Parenthood” and “Innocent, unborn babies deserve more than just a show vote.” Democrats such as Rep. Frank Pallone have accused the Republicans of just wanting a government shutdown, claiming, “That’s what they’re all about.” But, Rep. Marsha Blackburn (R- Tenn) refuted this statement, saying, “We are not on a bill about a government shutdown.”

After hours of emotional floor speeches citing graphic descriptions and images of mishandled abortions and references to the videos, the bill passed. A bill was also passed tightening restrictions on abortion doctors who violate infant protection laws in a 248-177 vote.

Planned Parenthood’s VP of communication responded: “Millions of Americans rely on Planned Parenthood for birth control, lifesaving cancer screenings, and other critical preventive care, and nothing that politicians in Congress did today will change the fact that our doors remain open to everyone, in every part of this country, who needs high-quality, compassionate reproductive health care.”

Republicans say that Planned Parenthood’s funding will be reallocated to the thousands of government-supported health centers, which would treat the women who had previously gone to Planned Parenthood. Democrats, however, say that these clinics already have too many patients to treat, and this bill will result in reduced women’s health care.

Planned Parenthood currently receives $450 million a year in federal payments, mostly in the form of Medicaid support for low-income patients. This is just 1/3 of the organization annual budget of $1.3 billion to support its 700 clinics that provide STD testing, contraceptives, and abortions. None of the federal funds can be used for abortions.

Personally, I do not agree with this bill, as Planned Parenthood provides both sexual and reproductive health care and education for millions nationwide, including STD tests, cervical and breast cancer treatments, and abortions, playing a very important role in the health of many women. I also feel that this bill would undercut a woman’s right to choose.

What do you think? Do you think that this issue is worth a government shutdown? If enacted, how would it affect women’s health care? How do you think this issue will impact the upcoming presidential election?

Sources:

http://time.com/4040582/house-vote-defund-planned-parenthood/

http://thehill.com/policy/healthcare/254181-house-votes-to-freeze-funding-for-planned-parenthood